What is the current scope of the index declared in for loops in dmc? A
few years ago, it appeared
that SC, as Visual C, did not obey the new scoping rules specified in
the standard.
Specifically, what is the scope of i?
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
....
}
Ed Sowell

What is the current scope of the index declared in for loops in dmc? A
few years ago, it appeared
that SC, as Visual C, did not obey the new scoping rules specified in
the standard.
Specifically, what is the scope of i?
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
....
}

// here the 'i' still exists as far as I know!
I am not even sure whether or not this is part of the latest C++
standards. I know there was a lot of discussion about it when it was
introduces and I do seem to remember that it was dropped in favor of
existing code...
Jan

Hi Jan,
According to one of the most widely used C++ texts (Deitel& Deitel), it is
the standard.
Nonetheless, MSVC 6.0 does not follow it. Borland and DJGPP does. When I
tested
SC in about 98, it did not, probably following Microsoft's instincts.
I am not a standards guru, so can't say for sure...
Ed Sowell
Jan Knepper wrote:

"Edward F. Sowell" wrote:

What is the current scope of the index declared in for loops in dmc? A
few years ago, it appeared
that SC, as Visual C, did not obey the new scoping rules specified in
the standard.
Specifically, what is the scope of i?
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
....
}

// here the 'i' still exists as far as I know!
I am not even sure whether or not this is part of the latest C++
standards. I know there was a lot of discussion about it when it was
introduces and I do seem to remember that it was dropped in favor of
existing code...
Jan

What is the current scope of the index declared in for loops in dmc? A
few years ago, it appeared
that SC, as Visual C, did not obey the new scoping rules specified in
the standard.
Specifically, what is the scope of i?
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
....
}

// here the 'i' still exists as far as I know!
I am not even sure whether or not this is part of the latest C++
standards. I know there was a lot of discussion about it when it was
introduces and I do seem to remember that it was dropped in favor of
existing code...

No, the standard requires 'i' to be in local scope. Existing code could
easyly be adapted to this new rule. BTW, I would like to have this in
DMC too, could be enabled/disabled by a compiler switch.
Regards,
Heinz